[nurb]

Well, I work in weapons industry (I wasn't able to do a thesis because public labs doesn't have money).

So what's wrong with it?

First, things I work on are sold to both sides, in my case to a country well known to shit on human rights... And a few GUI/feature tweak later it's sold to another more respectful one.

Also, in a more general way, the main purpose of it is to kill or fear peoples, peoples with different/unaccepted ideas, peoples who disagree with the weapons owner.

Does it sound right to you?

Of course it's approved by the government, but it sounds way more like a money driven decision than a smart one. And when I ask people how they feel about it, nobody cares, typical responses:

"We are not working on a weapon, we are working on --any subsystem that doesn't sounds like a weapon--"

"I'm not the one who sell it!"

So it's nobodies fault, like during the WW2, "I'm just driving the train, I have nothing to do with deportation"

[lgieron]

Without weapons you cannot have an army, and without an army you are instantly conquered by some raging lunatic despot who happens to have one. Having more advanced weapons than the loonies is a blessing IMO.

[nikdaheratik]

Saying "I don't feel comfortable doing X" is not the same as saying "no one should do X". I'd feel the same about not wanting to work for a casino, or a lab that makes better tobacco products, but oddly enough not a brewery.

[tamana]

OK now justify selling weapons to the loonies like 90% of arms manufactures or their customers do. For last 50 years, US enemies fight using US provided weapons.

And what happens when the conquering despot is my country (Dick Cheney's team)

[lgieron]

That's foreign policy, that doesn't have much to do with the manufacturing of weapons. Weapons manufacturers just provide weapons to their country and it's the country's (politicians) job to make wise use of it.